| Literature DB >> 19454592 |
Charles A Nock1, Daniela Geihofer, Michael Grabner, Patrick J Baker, Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin, Peter Hietz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Wood density is a key variable for understanding life history strategies in tropical trees. Differences in wood density and its radial variation were related to the shade-tolerance of six canopy tree species in seasonally dry tropical forest in Thailand. In addition, using tree ring measurements, the influence of tree size, age and annual increment on radial density gradients was analysed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19454592 PMCID: PMC2710901 DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcp118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Bot ISSN: 0305-7364 Impact factor: 4.357
Species examined, shade-tolerance, number of trees sampled (n), diameter at breast height (DBH) of sample trees and average percentage change in wood density (from pith to bark) for six tropical trees in western Thailand
| Species | Family | Shade-tolerance | DBH mean (range) (cm) | Percentage change in wood density* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fabaceae (Caesalp.) | Intolerant | 9 | 58·8 (12·1–84·4) | 24 | |
| Meliaceae | Intolerant/intermediate | 22 | 41·5 (11·0–67·2) | 38 | |
| Meliaceae | Very intolerant | 11 | 51·2 (16·9–62·7) | 70 | |
| Lauraceae | Tolerant | 26 | 44·5 (8·5–69·7) | −13 | |
| Meliaceae | Intolerant | 9 | 64·4 (36·0–76·1) | 27 | |
| Lamiaceae | Intermediate | 12 | 28·8 (14·0–43·4) | 36 |
* Values from a linear mixed-effects model (Table 2, Model 1; Table 4).
Comparison of the fitted models for six tree species from western Thailand including the predictor variables examined, corresponding maximum log-likelihoods, AIC values and differences in AIC relative to the model with the lowest AIC (Model 2; ΔAIC)
| Model | Random intercept | Random slope | Log- likelihood | AIC | ΔAIC* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | x | x | x | x | −7615·76 | 15261·53 | 0·9 | |
| 2 | x | x | x | x | x | −7613·31 | 15260·63 | 0 |
| 3 | x | x | x | x | −7621·41 | 15272·81 | 12·18 | |
| 4 | x | x | x | x | −7645·76 | 15315·52 | 54·89 | |
| 5 | x | x | x | −7696·08 | 15406·16 | 145·53 |
Predictor variables included distance from the pith in cm (D) and species (S). The inclusion of a term is indicated by an x.
* Note: ΔAIC <2 indicates little difference in support for competing models (Burnham and Anderson, 2002).
Maximum likelihood parameter estimates and confidence limits (95%) for a linear mixed-effects model describing changes in wood density with distance from the pith (D) for six canopy tree species (Spp) in western Thailand (Table 2, model 1)
| Parameter | Estimate (s.e.) | Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 809·6 (32·0) | 25·31 | <0·001 | 747·1, 872·1 |
| 5·0 (1·5) | 3·26 | 0·001 | 2·0, 8·0 | |
| Spp | ||||
| | −193·7 (38·1) | −5·08 | <0·001 | −269·2, −118·3 |
| | −320·7 (42·5) | −7·54 | <0·001 | −404·3, −236·5 |
| | 37·2 (37·6) | 1·00 | 0·325 | −37·2, 111·6 |
| | −336·6 (47·2) | −7·13 | <0·001 | −430·1, −243·2 |
| | −109·7 (43·7) | −2·51 | 0·014 | −196·2, −23·2 |
| 3·8 (2·0) | 1·90 | 0·056 | −0·1, 7·7 | |
| 6·0 (2·1) | 2·79 | 0·005 | 1·8, 10·2 | |
| −8·2 (1·9) | −4·30 | <0·001 | −11·9, −4·5 | |
| −1·2 (2·2) | −0·53 | 0·589 | −5·4, 3·1 | |
| 10·1 (3·2) | 3·17 | 0·002 | 3·9, 16·3 | |
| Variance components | s.d. | Likelihood-ratio | Confidence interval | |
| Intercept | 55·6 | 16·19 | <0·001 | 41·7, 74·1 |
| Residual | 76·7 | 62·1, 80·3 | ||
| AR1 error term | 0·76 | 436·51 | <0·001 | (0·70, 0·80) |
P-values for Spp and D × Spp test are for significant differences relative to Afzelia xylocarpa.
Species abbreviations: Ct, Chukrasia tabularis; Ma, Melia azedarach; No, Neolitsea obtusifolia; Tc, Toona ciliata; Vp, Vitex peduncularis.
Comparison of the fitted linear mixed models for Melia azedarach examining the effects of radial distance from the pith (D), log-transformed age (A) and annual increment (I) on wood density including the predictor variables examined and corresponding maximum log-likelihoods, AIC values and differences in AIC among models (ΔAIC)*
| Model number | Fixed effects terms | AIC | Log-likelihood | ΔAIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3122·37 | −1552·18 | 0 | |
| 2 | 3126·49 | −1554·24 | 4·12 | |
| 3 | 3130·26 | −1558·13 | 7·89 | |
| 4 | 3131·29 | −1557·65 | 8·92 | |
| 5 | 3132·09 | −1558·04 | 9·72 | |
| 6 | 3138·63 | −1562·31 | 16·26 | |
| 7 | 3138·91 | −1561·46 | 16·54 |
n.s., Non-significant terms at P < 0·05.
* Note: ΔAIC values between 3 and 7 indicate considerably less support for the model (Burnham and Anderson, 2002).
Maximum likelihood parameter estimates and confidence limits (95%) for the linear mixed model describing variation in wood density with log-transformed tree age (A) and annual increment (I) for Melia azedarach (Table 3, model 1)
| Parameter | Estimate | Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 450·5 (60·9) | 7·40 | <0·001 | 331·5, 569·6 |
| 177·9 (50·6) | 3·51 | <0·001 | 78·9, 276·9 | |
| −124·3 (34·5) | −3·60 | <0·001 | −191·7, −56·8 | |
| 116·3 (33·5) | 3·47 | <0·001 | 50·7, 181·8 | |
| Variance components | Standard deviation | Likelihood-ratio | Confidence interval | |
| Intercept | 138·6 | 13·63 | 0·001 | 73·3, 261·9 |
| 115·6 | 9·48 | 0·009 | 50·4, 265·1 | |
| Residual | 64·1 | 57·3, 71·7 | ||
| AR1 error term | 0·34 | 24·38 | <0·001 | 0·22, 0·48 |
Fig. 1.Wood density for six canopy trees species in western Thailand: pairs with the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0·05). Values were calculated from a linear mixed effects model of the variation in wood density (Table 4) and error inflation controlled using Tukey's multiple comparison procedure.
Fig. 2.Variation in wood density with distance from the pith for six tree species in western Thailand with fitted values predicted by a linear mixed effects model fit by maximum likelihood (Table 2, Model 1).
Fig. 3.Relationships for Melia azedarach: (A) stem radius and tree age; (B) predicted wood density and the interaction of annual increment and tree age; (C) annual increment and wood density; (D) increment and log-tree age; (E) wood density and log-tree age; ( F) wood density and tree age. For (B) values for mean increment, mean increment plus one standard deviation, and mean increment minus one standard deviation were calculated with the observed data for the following year classes: 0–9, 10–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–50. These values were then used to calculate predicted values of wood density at each age from a linear mixed model (Model 1, Table 3).
Fig. 4.Slope of the increase in wood density with distance from the pith predicted from a linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood versus average growth rate for Melia azedarach trees in western Thailand (Model 2, Table 3).